tv [untitled] September 21, 2012 4:30am-5:00am PDT
situation now is not the same as it was six years ago where we were starting fresh, so to speak. so, that's my only opinion at this point. >> okay. well, thank you for that, commissioner lee. so, i concur and i think my sense is, and correct me if i'm wrong, most commissioners up here feel that this process should be done as efficiently as possible. we've had a pretty efficient empowerment, plan check is running pretty efficiently. obviously we have to go through the motions and make sure everything is done correctly. one of the big advantages i see here, and commissioner walker is kind of pointing them to me here, we have a lot of the groundwork done with respect to the language and so on which i would imagine talking to people in the past, that was the difficult part putting all that language together, getting this all agreed on. and so i do believe based on
what i'm reading, we can touch base on this as we get further into t we are in agreement with most of the language we have. we obviously with the job description, like commissioner lee is saying, probably need to give it some thought and add in there what we think is missing on that last go around, particularly with what we're looking for from our new director. with regard to the search firm, i'd like to take the model that we took -- commissioner walker took the last time, is get directive from the commission, put together a qualified firm and from that pick -- >> approved firm. >> qualified approved firm. >> they're already approved by hr for doing searches for us. >> yes. and short list that, bring it back to the commission, and process there. with my goal to do this as quickly and efficiently as possible, i like the aspect of working with the professions within the departments that are -- the different departments like you did in the past,
commissioner walker, just to make sure we've got everything done correctly before we do send out -- before we select and do send out the job application information. so, with that, i'll ask one question. do we have a list? i don't know, pam. do we actually have a current list of the type of firms that are, as commissioner walker said, approved that we can work with immediately? >> yes. city services auditor which is part of the controller's office worked with the department of resources. and they put out an rfq, which is a request for qualifications. they have 10 firms that have been approved to use as, you know, to be able to solicit whether or not they can provide the services that we're looking for. so, i've looked into what --
it's kind of what we're going to have to do, called a mini rfp, which is not going to be that much of a deal. i've done some research and talked to several people in the other departments on what exactly needs to be done. there is information that we will need to provide to human resources to start the project. we need to make a decision on the scope of work that we want, you know, the search firm to have. they have examples. when i looked at the various firms, we've got -- there's some of the websites don't have a lot of information. right now we're reviewing what the response to the request for qualifications and see which ones would be appropriate. but a list of the firms have a lot of experience with san
franci cirques -- franciscans. there are some firms that specifically have that. but we can write into the scope of work for the search firm that they must have, you know, experience with providing the kind of position, the kind of requirements that we have. i do have a copy of -- that maybe some of you have, what was a brochure that was used last time. and as i said, we have contacted the hr. we're working with them to start up. there are some questions they want us to fill out before hand. and my group is poised to help you in any way we can possibly do. >> commissioner lee. >> i have a couple questions. one real simple question is do we know what the average cost
of a search is now? i mean, i know -- i may recall what it was six years ago, but i don't know what it is now. and the second question is how does the hr fit into all this? i seem to have forgotten that. >> there is an average cost rate now, it's less than 50,000. i've done a couple of things. it's a little hard to find information directly. but i think that it definitely will be less than 50, somewhere 25, 30 max. it really depends on what we put into the scope of work. the second is in terms of the hr the way they work now, it's just i think different than before. but they assist us in kind of the negotiations with the search firm. they basically are an assistance type of thing where they have familiarity with what the firms can provide. they will look at what our scope of work and make
suggestions. they're just there to, you know, assist us. they do not run the process. they do not make -- they do not determine -- you guys determine what exactly you want in a director and what exactly you want in, you know, the scope of work. if we want to stay general like this was fairly general, we can. if we want to make it more specific, we can. it's really up to you. >> so, who actually makes the announcement? is it the hr that makes the announcement or is it the search firm that makes the announcement? -- opening? >> the search firm is the one who goes out and -- i mean, part of their responsibility is to go out and look at targeted, you know, like icc and publications and halvo, and other types of groups in order to do the announcement, and to
provide the -- you know, the brochure or whatever. they're the ones that collect the information. in some cases they've done short lists, but it's really up to how we want it done. >> so is it done how the relationship is? we can decide on how the relationship -- >> yes. >> okay. >> and, you know, if we have a choice of 10 firms, so, you know, if they -- we can choose to deal with a firm that is going to provide us what we want. >> commissioner walker first, yeah. >> the benefit of working, especially with someone who is engaged in the industry is that they are aware of people in different locales who they think might fit our criteria, who might be interested. so, it's not even just a matter of announcing it. they actually recruit.
they make calls to folks that they have relationships with that they know of in the industry, and it provides much more response to just a general notice that we might post somewhere. so, it really helps -- it helps us in the process that we went through. and also they have talked to each of the commissioners. so, if there's anything that would necessarily exclude them because of that, they would not be in our recommendation and they would say, why? i mean, it was a pretty extensive report that we got that accompanied their recommended list of people that we interview. so, they would say, you know, these are included and these aren't and why and it gives us -- because i think still we had three or four meetings where we interviewed people in closed
session to really get to the questions that we have. and it was -- i think we had i can't even remember how many candidates we had. it was over 10, i think, maybe something like 14, i can't remember. >> it was more than half a dozen. >> but we didn't interview them all because some of them were not appropriate and didn't fall -- or fell below our individual threshold. so, it was a good process that worked and i think it did help expedite, even though it took awhile, it took time to create stuff we won't have to now. so, i think it's a good start to jump off of and move forward. i mean, which i would like to do, is to really authorize us to do the request, the mini request to interest people in applying as our search firm. >> the other thing is because they have people that are
already qualified, we don't have to go through the process of going through some of the political processes trying to -- or the bureaucratic process. it's already done. not all of it's done because these are just qualified firms, but we -- there's a lot of information on how to do this. there's a lot of current experience and, you know, i think we can try to go quickly on this. >> just one final question. to kind of keep it streamlined, you have -- not to get into dollar amounts, you have authorization up to x amount of dollars, right, to pay for certain things, right? >> yeah. i mean -- >> rather than having to go for -- yeah. okay. so, we'll just keep that in our mind. we can have that conversation another time. but, so, in summary, would we -- i ask the commissioners --
would we concur that we would like to set kind of a time frame or timeline that we'd like to see certain aspects of this search being met? is that possible, or should we just, you know, agree that we're going to do it as efficiently and as fast as possible? and the other thing i'd like to ask is in the interest of streamlining, because that's a big thing for me, where do we stand about having special meetings? i think one of the big delays is getting everybody back together and getting on the calendar, you know. are we allowed to have -- set up special meetings with regard solely for this? >> yes. >> john malmed from the city attorney's office. yes, you can set up special meetings of the commission. you could create -- you can do that today because it's not
agendized, but you can create a subcommittee of the commission that takes the lead and they would meet separately as a smaller group on a more regular basis rather than trying to assemble the whole commission * . the commission could give authority like they did last time to the president or another commissioner to kind of take the lead and then report back and set up meetings with the full commission as needed. >> commissioner lee. >> i don't -- i just propose that we duplicate like last time, which is give the president the authority to take the lead. and if you need the commission to meet, we hold special meetings and just decide everything out in the open here. >> and as an addition, the goal would be to bring back the responses from the search firms
who are interested in doing the jobs. and then setting up, you know, maybe meeting with the department heads like we did before to get their input in advance. but it's -- and then to -- i mean, the interviews happen with all of us. so, i just want to be clear that that's -- >> we vote on -- we short list this and they will vote on those [inaudible]. >> i seem to recall that we also heard the presentation from the search firms. >> correct. >> and then we selected which one [inaudible]. >> [inaudible]. >> i heard there was another process where the search firm interviewed the commissioners in terms of our views on what was a priority for us in terms of -- that to me, that's an
important input from the commissioners. >> yes, those were individual meetings. >> where do we stand there with regard to sunshine and so on if the search firm wanted to call commissioner walker separately and so on or even talk to commissioners at the same time, in the interest of -- >> we could work on that as it unfolds. but maybe what we should do is in the rfp, the shorter rfp to identify the firms, it might be one the criteria that we consider is to request that there be permissible meeting or meetings with individual commissioners. so, it's set up up front and then i can work with the department and the search firm on what would be appropriate in terms of the issues concerning quorum and public meetings. >> i don't think -- they don't have a restriction because they're not a commissioner. it's just us. so, they're getting information from us for their search.
>> okay. well, we just want to be squeaky clean here so we don't have to backtrack. commissioners, what's in front of us, then, i'd like to -- can somebody second commissioner lee's motion and we can take a vote on that? because this is an action item. >> i second the motion to allow the president to set up meetings with other departments and develop criteria for doing a search. >> access, right? >> right. >> the process for finding a permanent director. >> and bringing it back for a vote to us. >> okay. could i get a second on that? >> second. [speaker not understood]. >> there is a motion on the floor. is there public comment on this?
spencer gash, once again, building inspector for 22 years. i see the search firm as little more than allowing two benefits for you. it delays the process and allows you to hire a good crony. and i have some reasons why you should try to speed things up. and it relates to what the current director has been up to. and there's a larger problem in the department other than the racism which i discussed last time, and that is the lack of written and authorized direction to staff. for the last four plus years there have been no such documents produced by management. director, how many directives have you written? no answer. director sweeney, directors? >> let me stop you right there, commissioner. what is in front of us is item -- i'm explaining why you should speed things up. >> i'm telling you now you need to -- stop the clock, please. >> not refer to staff.
confront us here about the item on the search for the director. please keep your comments to that. and i asked you that once. very good, sir. there are reasons to speed up this search. so, okay. no directives from staff. i think that's a big problem. you need a director who will direct. furthermore, how can this commission allow a department to exist with no written and authorized policies and procedures? how can you allow these persons whose actual title includes the word director to not direct? i insist a director who has not issued any directives is committing administrative malfeasance at the level of official misconduct. the lack of written direction for a lengthy period of time has resulted in complete confusion at the department from operating by word of mouth only. has the department become criminal or are they just operating in a criminal -- >> once again you're off topic. i am on topic. >> i am stopping you right there and i have every right to do that. i have asked you now to stay on topic. you have not. i would like to end public comment. thank you. you're trying to muzzle me
and i don't appreciate that. >> i've spoken, thank you, as chair. thank you. next speaker. john [speaker not understood], inspector from the department. i was here on another topic and just listening to public comment, i as a building inspector would like to disassociate myself from the previous speaker. i would hope that you will realize he speaks on his own behalf. i would doubt if the comments he's made today and at previous meetings, i doubt if any inspector in the department of building inspector department of housing would have anything in common with the comments he's making. and as regards the topic -- >> please, sir, sit down or i'm going to have to ask you to leave this room. please leave the room if you can't conduct yourself, please. thank you.
as regard to the topic at hand, in case i'm accused of being off topic, the process that was used the last time, i have no issue with it. one thing i would add is that the process was okay, but the finished product i wasn't too happy with for the simple reason that the final candidate was somebody who had no familiarity with this city. so, what i would encourage you to do, have one of the criteria that the final candidate has some familiarity and background with this city. it's a very complicated city. and [speaker not understood] if you get somebody from totally outside the city, [speaker not understood]. and i would hope that you have that as part of your criteria so that whoever is selected stays for the long term and not
have us like happened the last time where, you know, everybody was delighted, we finally got somebody permanent. and a few months later, you know, the job was given to somebody else. she did a fine job. i would hope this time the finished product is a decision where somebody takes the run and stays for sometime and we all have continuity. thank you for your time. >> thank you, inspector. next speaker. seeing none. >> okay. we'll go back to the motion. i'll do a roll call vote on that motion. president mccarthy? >> aye. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clench? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> and the motion carried
unanimously. item 7, director's report, 7a, update on dbi finances. >> pamela levin. we have so far two months' worth of experience with this fiscal year. so, this basically we're projecting to end up on budget if we don't have any additional information to be able to tell you that it's the logical thing to say we'll be over budget or under budget. what we're seeing is that the revenues for charges for service have increased substantially compared to last year at this time. so, year to date august 2012 versus year to date, august
2011, the increase has been almost 45%. that is -- we also have looked at the number of issue permits and those have gone up by 9%, but the total valuation has gone up by 48%. so, what we're seeing is that we're seeing larger projects bringing -- coming in, or we're issuing permits for larger projects and that's bringing in additional revenues. in terms of expenses as you know our largest category of expenses is salaries and fringes. as i mentioned, what we're doing right now is projecting that we're going to end up on budget. we have a staffing plan that we
presented to the budget committee and that is that the back of your -- the back of your package. * at the back of your package. and it consisted of 63 positions. so, we will start -- at the time that we fill all these positions feeding into -- actually spending our salaries and fringes, we do expect that because these positions are spread out through the year, we probably will have some salaries and fringe savings, but we're really working on trying to bring people in so that we can respond to the additional demand and what you're going to see as a result is that the column that says salaries and fringes, you'll see more blue than right now. if you look at the sheet that i gave you on the hiring plan, it shows a target field date and that was the date that we gave
when we did our documents given to the budget committee and it has the total number in terms of head count. and then what we did was we put in the recruitment status. so, right now we're going full bore, assuming that we will follow this hiring plan. and, you know, we try to give you an idea once we've got the referrals and we do canvassing after the test, we do canvassing what the rules will be because that makes a difference in terms of how long it takes and who can be selected. just as i mentioned, the 1406s, we're working hard on, which is the entry level clerks and hope to have the referral sometime the end of next month.
the delay is because they made it a city-wide referral rather than a department referral. so, all the departments have to have all their requisitions in and they all have to be involved and we have to do all the canvassing. and then we have been very successful in the exams in terms of getting help from dhr and getting them out. the building inspectors' exams closed on the 14th of september, and those are currently being evaluated. and we are working on the housing inspectors right now and we will be doing a very due diligence in terms of having parties look at the way the housing inspector specifications are put together so that we won't have any problems later on in terms of the recruitment.
any questions? >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. on the hiring plan sheet, what is the rule of 10, rule of 7, rule of 3? >> okay. so, that means that once we get a list, you can only go down that far. so, if we were the first department accessing the list, we would canvas -- if it's rule of 3 -- the first 3. if those have already disappeared, then it goes down. we have 13 clerks for the 1406s, and so how that's going to work i'm not quite sure, but all those rules are set up with dhr and -- but sometimes the rules are set up kind of in conjunction with the unions. but if the unions want to extend them, they can, but typically they want to keep it. so, if it's rule of 3 it's going to be rule of p. they're not going to change it during the process.
* 3. >> thank you. >> are there any more questions for the deputy director? thank you, pam. >> item 7b, update on proposed legislation. >> good morning again, commissioners. bill stern, legislative public affairs. reference was made a little bit ago by the executive director from the small business commission about supervisor chu's legislation which did get modified into a series of notifications to make sure commercial landlords leasing property to small businesses inform the small businesses about compliance issues that may exist in that particular building. the mayor did sign that legislation on the 7th of september so we expect that will become officially legal as of the 8th of october.
so, that has passed with moving into operation. also in that same category, supervisor david chu's legislation dealing with on-site water reuse, you may remember that's for commercial buildings, multi-family buildings and mixed use buildings for commercial purposes, is a voluntary program to try and model on the new headquarter building for the sfpuc to have people conserve more water. that also has passed unanimously and will take effect i believe in the second week of october. the efficiency legislation that supervisor weaner has had pending for awhile remains pending. the board may take a final second reading and vote on that at the last board meeting in september that is not yet on the agenda.
supervisor chu, as you know, does have another piece of legislation dealing with water bottle filling stations. that has been the code advisory committee for two sessions. during the last one, his staff member came and made a detailed presentation to the full cac and to the subcommittee. that staff person will be coming back probably with some people from the s.f.p.u.c. to talk about some of the details in those units. that will be of interest to us because if that legislation passes, we will be required to keep an inventory of the installation of these types of bottle filling station and provide annually for the next three years a report to the board of supervisors on how many have been installed. the